Mayor Bloomberg's Personal Reading Of Constitution

Tyranny: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says that in light of the Boston Marathon bombing, our interpretation of the Constitution will "have to change." Americans should be appalled at such a statement.

But they're not. His comments "we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater ... our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change" have drawn yawns.

More frightening than his statement is the nagging fact that the public has not risen up in opposition to his declaration. A free nation should respond to such a crude threat to its liberties with righteous anger.

But we're not such a free nation anymore. Long ago much of the country changed its interpretation of the Constitution. To many now, it simply means what they want it to mean, not what it actually says.

These acts were done, however, quietly and gradually. No one announced that the Constitution was going to be violated, that our liberty would be infringed upon.

But Bloomberg, who doesn't care one hoot about constitutional or God-given liberties, telegraphs an intention to breach the Constitution and no one is scared?

Maybe that would change if the right questions were asked, such as:

Whose interpretation does the mayor suggest we follow? And if the question is simply which group gets to decide, then aren't we living in a land not of law but of force?

What about those who disagree with the new interpretations? Is it just tough luck for them?

Should the dissenters simply sit down, shut up and accept whatever the political elites hand down?

Bloomberg's explanation is that he merely wants to protect Americans from a "very dangerous world" where "we know there are people who want to take away our freedoms." Freedoms, Mr. Mayor, such as the choice of soft drink size, the voluntary and peaceful intake of salt and trans fats, or the right to own firearms?

Maybe there are enemies out there who want to take away our freedoms. But clearly, and sadly, we have political leaders who want to do the same thing.

Seems like terrorists win either way.

Tyranny: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg says that in light of the Boston Marathon bombing, our interpretation of the Constitution will "have to change." Americans should be appalled at such a statement.

But they're not. His comments "we live in a complex world where you're going to have to have a level of security greater ... our laws and our interpretation of the Constitution, I think, have to change" have drawn yawns.

More frightening than his statement is the nagging fact that the public has not risen up in opposition to his declaration. A free nation should respond to such a crude threat to its liberties with righteous anger.

But we're not such a free nation anymore. Long ago much of the country changed its interpretation of the Constitution. To many now, it simply means what they want it to mean, not what it actually says.

These acts were done, however, quietly and gradually. No one announced that the Constitution was going to be violated, that our liberty would be infringed upon.

But Bloomberg, who doesn't care one hoot about constitutional or God-given liberties, telegraphs an intention to breach the Constitution and no one is scared?

Maybe that would change if the right questions were asked, such as:

Whose interpretation does the mayor suggest we follow? And if the question is simply which group gets to decide, then aren't we living in a land not of law but of force?

What about those who disagree with the new interpretations? Is it just tough luck for them?

Should the dissenters simply sit down, shut up and accept whatever the political elites hand down?

Bloomberg's explanation is that he merely wants to protect Americans from a "very dangerous world" where "we know there are people who want to take away our freedoms." Freedoms, Mr. Mayor, such as the choice of soft drink size, the voluntary and peaceful intake of salt and trans fats, or the right to own firearms?

Maybe there are enemies out there who want to take away our freedoms. But clearly, and sadly, we have political leaders who want to do the same thing.

See Also

Leadership: Among the world's gamier states, there seems to be a new status quo: Kill your opponent. The murder of Boris Nemtsov is the latest such barbarism. It all suggests a void from the U.S. as leader of the free world.The brazen broad-daylight assassination of Nemtsov, a former Russian vice ...

Economy: In his weekly address, President Obama railed against Wall Street for giving "bad advice" that costs American families billions a year. OK, but what about his bad policies that have cost them far more?The president used his precious radio time to lash out at financial advisers for mistakes ...

Cities: The problem with socialism, Margaret Thatcher once noted, is you eventually run out of other people's money. In progressive Chicago, that's hit home as Moody's has cut its credit rating to two grades above "junk."Chicago's finances are staggering under the weight of an unfunded pension ...

Racial Politics: Attorney General Eric Holder complains that the U.S. needs a "lower standard of proof" to enforce civil-rights laws. Standards have already sunk under his "disparate impact" witch hunt. How low is enough? In an exit interview with Politico.com, the outgoing AG asserted, "Some ...

We recently launched the Committee to Unleash American Prosperity with the goal of persuading the presidential hopefuls in both parties to focus on the paramount challenge facing our country: slow growth and stagnant incomes. Faster growth isn't just needed to raise the living standards of ...

Select market data is provided by Interactive Data Corp. Real Time Services. Price and Volume data is delayed 20 minutes unless otherwise noted, is believed accurate but is not warranted or guaranteed by Interactive Data Corp. Real Time Services and is subject to Interactive Data Corp. Real Time Services terms. All times are Eastern United States. *Reflects real-time index prices.